Memo to Vice: Canada should not support journalism. Period. Journalism failed the people. We need a replacement -- and not a temple of misogyny that calls itself Vice.

Journalism had been to reduced to paupers fighting for government handouts. vice-og.png-2

The old newspaper relics are throwing childish temper tantrums, demanding to be saved because they are essential for the survival of mankind.

Yeah, civilization is doing just fine without your meddling, and that is the reason they are leaving you in droves.

Now, the other media want in on it, and Vice is now trying to make a case for Canada not supporting newspapers, but journalism.


If journalism as a model worked, then newspapers would be just fine because out of all four media, they did it the best -- and still screwed up to the point of no return.

And what's Vice besides a sexist pig sty? It's not journalism. It's smug trash that pretends to be on the top of some phantom pecking order. You're not fooling anybody.

Journalism -- as in the entire state of journalism -- is dead. D-E-A-D. The end. Period. The fat lady sang and left with the ship that sailed far away, never to return.

What kind of journalists are you if you don't see it?

Canada should not support a dead profession. The government should not be allowed to meddle in a new form of it, either -- if we need facts, then it helps when one of the behemoths that needs to be accountable does not control the purse strings or set up a system that is rigged to give it a free pass.

But Canadian journalism always had an addiction and dependence on the government to function, and it is the reason our journalism was destroyed first in the Western world. We are so used to be being nannied, that we do not know how to rough it, and how to stand up to authority, who have an enormously unfair advantage -- they set the rules, control the wealth, and rig the system to give themselves near immunity on almost every matter imaginable.

A new form of fact-gathering has to be rebellious by nature -- the contrarian who always questions why. It cannot look for support nor validation -- it has to have the confidence and the shrewdness to not fall for the lures of an authority supporting or praising it.

The fact that Vice is looking for support shows its bravado is all for show -- their façade does not match the mindset, and it glares.

Enough of the talk of needing to be kept to thrive. If you want people to need your product, make it useful and valuable.

You don't need a government or support to do that -- you need hard work, determination, and a plan.

No one in the profession did, and that's why it died.



The Decline and Fall of the Journalistic Patriarchal Model. It is time for a change.

Once upon a time the patriarchal model of journalism was seen as the ideal. It was easy to assume it because the titans of that industry held all of the cards. When you are the gate-keeper, you set the rules of engagement. It was a simple and simplistic model that seemed to work -- even without the science or the experimentation. You showcased a lot of visionary Great Men -- in the days where men were Great Men:


And the women were disposable eye candy prancing in public in their underpants:


It was all very Patriarchal.

It still is, don't kid yourself, children.







Because for it to change, news producers would have to admit they were wrong.

And then they would have to overhaul everything.

They'd rather scuttle their own ship, then make changes that could possibly benefit someone else, and they'd lose some of their power.

Yes, I know they already lost it; but they keep hoping for the calvary to arrive.

Except some of that calvary got angry, outed all the boors through #MeToo, and now started a little something you may have heard of called Time's Up.

The ones you dismissed as disposable eye candy turned themselves into soldiers.

Bless them for it. Keep it up.

The reason journalism died was that it so stubbornly stuck to a single structure of script. No women visionaries.

No swaggering female Turks that are taken seriously.

No Matriarchal structure.

That was a very bad move when social media exploded on the scene.

The nurturing Matriarchal was giving everyone a chance to be heard, and then the authoritative Patriarchal became threatened by it all, and then used all of its old tricks to its utter devastation.

Journalism is antiquated. It cannot function in its current form.

We need a different structure, and a different way of doing things.

Because it is time.

Right here, and right now.

American violence: Another school massacre. Another vessel of hate explodes. Grabbing that gun is a symptom, not the cause. When did it all go wrong and why?

American journalism has failed its people again. Another vessel of hatred and rage exploded, and like all the of the others before him, there were huge warning signs that people who should have done something about, ignored it.

American journalists have done a great disservice to its people: it keeps telling of a simple solution: just get rid of guns, and then all will be corrected.

No, it won't.

They will brings knives. They will throw acid. They will build bombs.

Do not kid yourself.

Do I believe in gun control?

I don't understand the need for guns in the first place. I have always said you can stick a gun in my hand, and anger me to the breaking point, I am not going to shoot anyone with it.

I do not live a stress-free, trouble-free charmed life. The last couple of years have been horrendous.

But I am not someone who would cause another person harm or trauma.

I have empathy. I have morals. Guns do not appeal to me.

But America has a violence problem. The guns are a manifestation of that problem, not the cause.

But the news media like quick and easy solutions. They tell people if guns are off the street, they can go back to their mundane middle-class lives worry-free.


Gun control is a shallow solution to a deep-rooted problem.

Why do you have so many young men (and a few young women) who explode like that?

Violence is glorified everywhere: it's in the movies and on television. It is in video games. It is always seen as a solution to a problem.

It's not.

It is a hyper-violent society that has parents go ballistic if a teacher sees that their child is troubled and points this out to them. We do not teach emotional literacy in schools. We don't teach children at an early age to deal with rejection, obstacles, and frustrations.

I work as an educator. I have taught children and young adults. I worked in one place where a student physically assaulted a teacher, and the student was not expelled or charged -- and I find out all this after he was in my class. I was not warned.

The rate of shootings is increasing. The problem is getting worse. People want a fast fix, but there isn't one. It requires facing some very ugly truths. It requires work that will take people away from their online gaming.

What we have is a lack of connect. We have an Internet that is filled with people recruiting youth into all sorts of violent ventures, from gangs to cyberbullying to even terrorism.

The latest killer fell through hundreds of cracks. If teachers were given the tools and the freedom to identify troubled students so that something can be done, it would help far more than just hoping the kid whose gun was taken away doesn't resort to explosives.

Gun control is a tiny fraction of the problem. The drive -- the rage -- to kill is the bigger problem.

Journalism could have been a tool to stop politicizing hatred -- it could have had student reporters on staff to show what is happening within their own schools, for instance.

I have said it in my book Don't Believe It!: that there is a huge difference between a story that asks "Are your kids safe at school" and "Are you safe at school?"

It was something that troubled me when I was working on Chaser News: one of the stories I covered was a general version of the "Are you safe at school" story. It covered health and safety violations, but had I more traction, the natural progression would soon entail student-on-student violence because this was going to be a long-arc for me.

Because media never talked to kids. They have become an enigma to us. So when they explode and shoot up their school -- or pack it up to join ISIS -- we are shocked, shocked, shocked.

Why are we shocked?

Because an entire demographic was ignored.

Yes, America, you have a problem.

Don't look to your television ads for Gun Away that works like a Slap Chop.

Take a walk through your children's schools tomorrow, and study that battlefield.

Look around at the other kids, and your own to see how they fit together -- or don't.

You will have to do all this work yourself because there is no media outlet who can do that for you.

And that is one of the greatest failures of journalism -- that they never bothered to look toward the future by walking those school halls to tell you how things were fragmenting and falling apart.

Memo to the Boston Globe: Stop whining about your rivals new owners. Vulture capitalists came to power because journalists never stood up to tyrants. You always glorified them. Now deal with the consequences honestly -- or did you think if you curried favour with the vultures, they'd leave you alone?

The Boston Globe is a having a hissy fit because the company who bough their rival are, in their words, a venture capitalist. boston-globe

You don't say?


How do you think those kinds of players get that far?

They are brutes. They are relentless and aggressive, but if they are held accountable in public, they don't fare well.

They use all sorts of feints and ruses.

36 Stratagems and all that jazz.

They use public relations firms.

And they play the press, particularly the business section.

Because journalists always love a titan, and a Great Man.

They slobber all over them as they make the little people feel small.

I worked as business journalist. I know what games go on. The graft, the promises, all of it.

I never bought it for a second. Those people are good at selling, and advertising is a form of propaganda.

You have to resist falling victim to it.

But journalists like to brag, don't they?

They love to build up those Great Visionaries of Industry.

Rah rah rah.

Let's get down on those unions. Let's rage at raising the minimum wage, and why are all those people with graduate degrees renting out couches and demanding a livable wage?

Now you think of getting concerned: when it hits your flesh?

Spare people the sob story.

It is a day late and a dollar short.

You should have been the bane of the Titan's existence.

But you weren't.

Don't expect the people you ignored to worry about your collapse.

They have their own problems, and don't care.

They lived just fine without you doing what you were supposed to be doing all along.

Now deal with it.

National Post: Stop begging for government money. Stop misusing your newspaper to have the government save you so you can continue to do the same thing that got you in this mess to begin with. You made this mess. You clean it up. Or just get out a business you never understood in the first place.

This condescending plea to the government is not journalism. mv9ErfX-_400x400

This is advertising.

Begging the government to save you is shameful.

We have homeless people.

We have mentally ill people who cannot get treatment.

We have sick and terminally ill people.

We have refugees.

We have battered wives.

We have abused children.

We have disposed First Nations citizens who do not even have running water.

They are too sick and too weak to lobby the government.

But you, fellas, are arrogant spoiled brats who were too full of yourselves to make changes to keep up with the times.

It was always rearranging the window dressing with you. You never did anything to improve your product.

You ran to your focus groups who did nothing for your fortunes.

You curried favour with elites, and why not? How many of you are related to those elites by marriage or by blood.

So please, stop begging the government to save your hides.

Because you are supposed to be keeping government accountable, not openly pleading for a handout.

If you get one, the federal government proves to be an immoral enabler.

And you all incompetent frauds.

You do not know what it means to be a journalist. You know how to pontificate. You know how to knock the vulnerable when they are down.

But journalism -- and the business of journalism, you know nothing about.

I remember the day you were born. I covered it for Presstime.

Clueless then, clueless now.

I could see the writing on the wall that what you really were: a vanity newspaper.

You were jockeying for a spot at the cocktail party circuit in Toronto. That's all.

How embarrassing it must be for you all to be on your knees, having to plea for mercy.

You have been defending Great Men. You should have been a guardian to all citizens.

You ignored youth. I was a Language Studies professor dragging your free papers into my classes, and watching my students -- who weren't idiots -- ignore your rag.

I asked them why.

There are no stories speaking to us, they told me time and again.

They were right. Boy, did they have your number.

You ignored that demographic completely, as if they were beneath you.

You saw too many people beneath you. You were a little club and built a little fortress out of the newspaper nobody was reading.

Now, you want to force taxpayers who have already told you they are not buying your newspaper, to fund your dysfunction.

If the federal government understands the concept of democracy, they should tell your lot to fix your problems all on your own.

You made this mess.

You clean it up.

Stop misusing your paper to lobby the government. Stop using your paper as a propaganda tool to save yourselves.

You had a chance. It has been almost 20 years of your dreadful, shallow existence. If you cannot change, then get out of the business.



Bari Weiss, Othering, and Journalism's Cannibalization: why a profession makes a mockery of itself.

The New York Times' Bari Weiss wrote something very bigoted when she quoted a line from Hamilton on her Twitter feed:

“Immigrants: They get the job done.”

It was in reference to an American-born Olympian whose parents were born elsewhere.

As someone who is a first-generation Canadian, I can tell you that I am sick and tired of othering: an act of micro-aggression where people let you know in no uncertain terms you are not one of them.

I was born in Canada. I lived in Canada all my life in a city with a population of half a million people. I did not exclusively hang around other immigrants.

I have people asking where do I come from because they say they detect an accent.

No, you don't. No one asks me over the phone about my accent. In fact, people have asked about my accent even when I never opened my mouth.

They see my Eastern European features, and then ask something bigoted, and when I point out that I am Canadian, they ask about where my parents came from.

Even if I have an accent, listen to what I am saying, not how I am saying it.

Because it is an act of othering.

And Bari Weiss was othering, and it is a very bigoted thing to do. She was wrong to do it. For all the talk about how bigoted Donald Trump is, he twice married women who were born in other countries than the United States.

We have people on the Left, who in 2018, still make bigoted comments, even when they are pretending to be praising the little "foreigner" in question. Left-handed compliments from a Left-winged person is still bigoted. Stop making reference to a person's nationality, accent, and skin-colour. Do not put yourself on the top of the pecking order where your praise puts you on top.

Praise is fine. Just make certain you are not misusing praise to insult someone else as you lecture him on not doing the very thing that you are doing with your fake kudos.

So Weiss isn't as clever as she thinks, but the rest of the news media has been feasting on the New York Times.

The New York Post was gleeful with the fallout of this mess.

The Huffington Post reported on leaked transcripts of the affair with their own snarky spin on it.

Meanwhile, various fragmented and rambling pieces from banally titled The Outline to the equally banally titled The Forward either defend or wax poet in their disdain.

The problem is opinionists actually do not understand their jobs anymore. They let the title go to their head, and they never bother thinking about what they are supposed to do. Other opinionists jump down their throats when Twitter (which is not the entire world, by the way) gets in a tizzy, even if opinions expressed in that venue do not always reflect the consensus at large.

Journalists have always been othering. It is a byproduct of a patriarchal structure: if you are not The One, then you are The Other.

It is time to quit that game in a world where information is global. Stop othering, and stop trying to make your own dysfunctional outlet seem superior with your own take on it. Journalism is broken beyond repair, and it needs more than stomping on another ignorant columnist whose arrogance blinds her to the obvious.


A tale of two blood-lettings: Vanity Fair and Global jettison some human cargo. One is a changing of the guard. Not the other.

Vanity Fair has a new editor, and it should surprise no one that 15 have been given their walking papers. Conde Nast's Glamour is also letting some staffers, go, but as Vanity Fair is still celebrity-focussed, don't be surprised if they replace the old guard with cheaper, younger models.screen_shot_2018-02-15_at_12.59.56_pm_-_h_2018 That's the last Graydon Carter-helmed cover, and like the others, the girls show their physical assets, while the boys do not. Will a new editor be any better? The façade will seem like it, but new boss will be the same as the old one.

But Global television is letting go 80 people across Canada, and this blood-letting is not regime change or "reshaping", as obnoxious doublespeakers like to spew. Canadian journalism collapsed, and this is no surprise to anyone who is observant to the current reality and can face it.


The union is whining, but they should really just shut up. Their workers didn't help their profession, and they didn't help themselves by extension. The entire profession sank to the bottom of a black hole, and pretending that it didn't is counterproductive. They don't have cards to play. They should have fought tooth and nail for things to help them improve their product so they wouldn't be in this position.

Broadcasters are also in big trouble here, thanks to Netflix and their ilk. Programming has gone turbo: spewing out a lot of little shows that are more disposable than the old guard. Once upon a time, Canadian broadcasters merely bought US programming and were profitable. While we have more Canadian-based content, people are getting their fixes on their tablets and smartphones. The era of scheduled must-see watching is gone. When you have two screens -- a computer and a television, the one with more versatility that you can take with you wins. When you held the remote control had full control, but now, you can watch whatever you want as your spouse and kids can do the same. It's a different world.

While both these blood-lettings signal different things, neither are a positive omen; it's just one is more dire than the other.

Manipulating narratives: When critics gloss over the facts to suit their own denial of reality.

Just listening to Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 over Patrick Brown. The screened callers aren't exactly informed and are getting their facts messed up with no one to remind them of the basic facts of the case. Someone took issue with Patrick Brown's accusers being "anonymous" and that Brown as a right to "face his accusers". They are manipulating the narrative, without bothering with a single fact. Because Brown knows exactly who his accusers are. Here is a passage of an article I have used before:

So Brown knows who are his accusers. He knows of the incidents in question.

So the narrative that these are faceless women, and poor little boy Brown has no idea who is talking, or what they are talking about is rubbish.

And I am quoting his own words.

Scandal doesn't just happen when something is illegal. Canada is not exactly some country that cracks down on anything. We have the Gerald Stanley verdict to remind us that it doesn't always matter if a law is on the books, you don't always have to answer for your actions.

I don't care if what Brown did was illegal. When a person in a position of power asks an underling for date, that is a form of bullying. You are not on equal ground. That's not flattering. I am not on the job to get dates, or be noticed for my looks. I have to earn a living, stupid.

As I have said before, there are other things that Brown is associated with -- the nomination process in various ridings -- that have bigger ramifications, and show that a clear pattern of strong-arming and bullying. I don't think the PC Party would have kicked him that fast and disavowed of him that quickly unless they saw an opening to rid themselves of someone of that ilk.

And when you see a glow and a popularity surge from a party who is in turmoil at this very inconvenient juncture right before an election, you know that things must have been horrific during the previous regime.

That tells us everything we need to know about Patrick Brown. He is going after women, while keeping quiet on the other issues surrounding his leadership.

But that doesn't suit the narrative of the #MeToo critics who are hoping against hope that Brown can dodge this bullet with his blustering tirade. Harvey Weinstein is blustering, too. It doesn't mean a thing.


The Patriarchal backlash: Everyone is offended, but they don't actually know why -- and journalism got tangled in their own rigged structure.

The Drudge Report is fascinating to me. It represents America's thinking so perfectly, and reminds me of Nora Dunn's skit on Saturday Night Live when she was in her character of the shallow Pat Stevens:

Well, you caught me doing my favorite thing -- reading a good book! You know, I like to think of my mind as a big, empty bucket, just waiting to be filled with pictures and words and...whatever. Surprise me! That's why Vogue is my favorite book...and you know, I have my own library -- volumes and volumes of Vogue. You know, I can just refer to them. What was I thinking last October? Well, I can look, and it's right her, between September and November!

Drudge tells you exactly what America is thinking today. Left, Right, it doesn't matter, you want to know the precise thoughts, go on Drudge.

Journalism lost that sense completely. They are running scared, but Matt Drudge, on the other hand, is sitting cool and collected. Journalists are insanely jealous of him, and they they do not understand how he does it.

It's simple: he has a pulse on society. When you have a pulse, you follow the flow, no matter how offended people are with your findings.

If I post a fact, and someone is offended, I don't care. They can throw a temper tantrum, and try to impose a silly narrative to demonize me, I still have the truth, they have a lie, and it becomes easy for me to have no respect for their opinion of me.

Because I respect the truth. I respect reality.

Their offended demeanour has absolutely no impact on the veracity of the fact.


They use their temper tantrum to try to sweep their problems under the rug, hoping it will all go away and work out in the end, and they will never have to face or own those problems.

But journalists are no longer brave in that regard. They have alienated too many people for them to be able to stand up and show their facts are right, and tell detractors that if they don't like reality, they should constructively focus on embracing truths, and then work to change the reality so that fact no longer applies.

But they can't do that for another reason: because when you express a hurtful opinion or narrative, and someone calls you out, then you are stuck. You know what you did was not kind or honest.

And while I keep a pulse on things in my own way, I find it interesting that the Drudge Report has all sorts of links to stories of this ilk. One radio station is forcing mandatory sensitivity training, for example. The Oscars have a backlash because more and more people are becoming offended by fictional characters. The New York Times fired a writer the same day because she used trigger slurs and interacted with alties.

On the face of it, these complaints are silly. If you don't like a movie, don't go watch it. I detest violence, for instance. I would never go see a horror movie again (I have seen a grand total of less than ten in my entire life), even if it was Japanese. I think they are sick.

But I wouldn't throw a hissy fit over them. I just don't give my money. I don't talk about them. I give them no publicity.

Movies are supposed to be about all sorts of people -- good and bad. To be offended that a villain does villainous things is ridiculous. Villains can be white men, black women, just as heroes can be Asian women or Latino men or First Nations trans.

And vice versa.

If you are going to stew over that, don't watch movies. At all. You don't get the concept that you are watching disposable entertainment.

If you do get it, you are just choosy. Use your dollars to support the kinds of things you like, but be aware that everyone else on the planet has the same right.

For the record, I don't watch movies at all, anymore. Why? Because they do not speak to me. I used to watch old movies and obscure indie art house weird stuff from all over the world, but now, I see it as a life sink.

The same goes for television. It's not as if I don't have shows I could watch (Elementary), and there are shows I loved until the direction went bad for me (Major Crimes I adored until the final season, which I won't watch, and Chicago PD until Erin Lindsey left), but there is one show I am waiting for it complete its season so I can binge watch, and that is The Good Fight.

People are shocked at how little I consume popular culture. Once upon a time, I taught Ideas in TV and Film to college students.

So what happened?

Simple: I had my fill of Patriarchal structures.

I was a pop culture junkie. I read comics books long before it was cool for girls to do so. I was four when I picked up my first comic book (an Archie Digest), and then quickly jumped to DC Comics where I followed the adventures of Wonder Woman, Batgirl, and Supergirl, as well as the men.

Now, I don't read them at all. I divested almost all of them save for my Blue Beetle Comics from Charlton because Ted Kord is just about the only hero that held up to scrutiny.

But I understood why I suddenly rebelled: I got sick and tired of the Patriarchal structure in storytelling.

It is not as if we should never have it. In fact, there are things going for it. It is about the One, for instance. If we have structural diversity, we wouldn't have so may violent reactions to stories, these days. We'd have tolerance, and people wanting stories where they could travel into even troubled psyches to understand why some people do the things that they do.

But with too much media these days -- it has become an overdose of a single (yes, single), kind of story that is, even if the story is written for a woman about women -- is masculine in mindset.

The thought patterns are rigged for a single kind of person: the predatory male.

The one who absolutely has to win at everything. The One.

It becomes an overload, and now the world is violently reacting to a single and overused structure.

There is almost no Matriarchal out there -- and when there is, it is too subtle, and mostly a hybrid where the Patriarchal still dominates.

The Matriarchal allows for different protagonists and doesn't go for the Chosen One structure. There is diversity on all levels, including ideological and political diversity. We learn to understand, and not always have knee-jerk reactions because these are the stories that bring spoilers depending on what you read and in what order you read it.

This has been my mode of fictional storytelling for many years, starting in 2008 with my book Consumer-isms in 12 Easy Steps, and then fully defined by 2013 with A Dangerous Woman Story Studio.

I will give you an example: in two short stories, we come in contact with someone who can be easily defined as a villain. Two different protagonists have dealings with the same villain, and have no end of grief because of him.

If that's all you read, you are not going to be rooting for this guy.

He is a supporting player in a prequel novella -- and we see the origins of his villainy -- but now we see that he is insecure and being manipulated to be a villain without his knowledge. He has no idea he is a puppet. If you don't read the short stories, you have sympathy for a man whose life has been rigged to fail on cue, and yet, he is a little too eager to be a bad guy.

And then he is a character in a novel that turns all of those rules on its head, and your impressions are shattered.

Same character, but if you think you know someone, think again.

A reader will have no idea what to make of certain characters. You can be offended, or even outraged, but the story doesn't end with a single story. Supporting characters in one book can be title characters in another series.

And we learn the importance of humility as we gather facts and truths about people.

You don't know until you make the effort to understand.


That's Matriarchal.

And it explains the growing backlash coming from both the Left and the Right.

They are angry, but don't know why.

It's the Patriarchal Backlash.

People are terrified of being villainized yet again. They are sick of certain groups getting preferential treatment with the hidden structural rigs in stories.

Movies do it. Even when a film is supposed to be about people other than attractive white men, they are, in fact, not.

And news stories continue to do it. It's why journalism has become offensive to people.

People always complained, but now, we can hear those complaints loud and clear.

And the world is starting to hate the Patriarchal because it is too restrictive.

We need Matriarchal stories, just for the change of pace.

We have to even explore other kinds of structures.

But the Matriarchal is a great start. We have too much aggression and anger out there.

We need to transmute that anger into something constructive.

Journalism should have always been Matriarchal: it should have shown us connections and not always go running after Great Men like trained lapdogs.

We do not always have to be angry and offended. We can simply support Matriarchal stories where no one falls beneath the cracks or feels ignored, but in a way that informs us and guides us to less selfish places.

It can be done, but only if we move away from the things that trigger our rage as we make the conscious effort to try new paths to get to better places.

Trying to animate a dead corpse: Why those in journalism don't get it.

Imagine you lived in a nice mansion for years, and then one day, bombs hit your mansion, turning it to rubble and contaminating the ground, making the entire area uninhabitable. What do you do?

The area is toxic. The foundation is shattered. The structure is broken, and even the ground is radioactive.

Do you go back to the rubble, scour Pinterest for a few ideas on making it look rustic, and ignore the radiation seeping into your system?

If you are sensible, you see that there is no more mansion. There is no more using contaminated wood, concrete, metal, anything. Even the soil is poisonous.

But to journalists, they are trying to see the idea that nothing has happened, and everything is just fine, thank you very much.

Newspapers are done. Television is losing advertisers in droves -- at least someone in that article realizes the healthy economy is not trickling over to their neck of the woods.

The amount of rot outweighs anything healthy. There is a point of no return, and that chroniclers of reality fail to see their own says everything you need to know about its demise.

But the way the Pollyanna enablers are trying to convince people their broken shack is perfect is breathtaking.

Journalism unConferences trying to pretend they do it differently, but in such childish terms it is shocking. Here is one blurb for a previous year:

A full unconference experience. It's like a conference, only better

Connect and share ideas with bright and innovative minds - from journalism professionals to members of the journalism consuming public and everyone in between. 

With tracks on Truth, Transparency, Community and Innovation the event is sure to be massively engaging, dynamic and exciting. 

Held in tropical Miami, we are bringing together all the stakeholders of the journalism ecosystem for a weekend of interactive sessions, networking events, and compelling presentations designed to spark conversation & unleash innovation.

This is vague nothingness. Engaging? Dynamic? Exciting? Is that how coroners describe autopsies? This isn't Disneyworld, and pretending that an "unconference" isn't a conference for slackers averse to reality is a knee-slapper, albeit an patronizing one.

Would you think journalism had any trouble with that teaser? Or that they should actually have been holding a wake for their profession?

And the groups associated with such façades are equally obvious. They may have "teams", but they do nothing, produce nothing, solve nothing, and prove nothing.

These are positions to pad a résumé, nothing more.


A "public benefit corporation"? What does that mean? How does a public benefit from a profession you didn't resurrect?

It is empty catchphrases, and for all the talk about being different, it is all unoriginal by-the-numbers pabulum that journalists are supposed to expose as mere narrative, not mimic.

They talk about a journalist's "creed", and some old school-superhero-y babble that did the profession in the first time, completely missing the point: journalism collapsed. Charity organizations and conferences don't save dead professions. Conferences are for networking and keeping up with the latest doublespeak in the field, along with having one night stands with people looking for some off-the-leash fun away from their nagging spouses who are the ones who actually pay the bills.

When your product is indistinguishable from the cheap knock-offs, conference time is over.

You have a crisis. You do not think up mission statements or beg the government for money. You have to fundamentally change. 

You have to look at that bombed out mansion on the toxic ground and see it.

Not escape in some clubhouse, complaining how the mean old world is telling you your mansion has been bombed back to the Stone Age.

You cannot animate a dead corpse. You cannot function is a pile of rubble. No new organization that tries to reanimate a dead profession is going to do it.

You have to start all over without the middle-management games of procrastination and escapism.

There are no titles or paper crowns. It's all work, not decrees.

It's why a dead profession has hundreds of little groups like this -- all fighting for a piece of that radioactive rubble, thinking they can get somewhere with it.

It has collapsed beyond repair.

And it's time to face it.

Why traditional media outlets cannot progress: They cannot take the heat.

The structure at traditional outlets is such that they cannot be controversial or take risks. Once upon a time, you could have controversial, and even horrible white men make it big. They could be racists, sexists, drug addicts, wife beaters, and even plagiarists and law breakers, but if what they wrote was good, the outlet would defend them.

Quinn Norton was a woman whose beats had her covering fringe elements, such as hackers and the Occupy movement, and she looked good on paper to the New York Times, who hired her without vetting her social media feed.

And when there was heat, they fired her the same day.

She had dealings with Neo-Nazis, and used slurs on Twitter, and I am surprised they didn't vet her social media sooner, considering how controversy-averse traditional outlets happen to be. That kind of outsider maverick cannot fit with the mainstream press. They want safe, and Norton was not. I do not know how much of that ideology she believes, though she says she does not, and how much mere tolerance was required to get to the stories she was writing, but to the Times, it didn't matter: she had dealings with icky people and said icky things online, and she had to go.

Covering that kind of undercurrent alters your perspective, and they won't let you play unless you follow those rules; the problem is that underground rules are opposite to mainstream rules. She has managed to be published in other mainstream publications, such as The Guardian and Wired, but her luck ran out at the Times.

This is the second time the Times has had a scandal with associating with that kind of element. They honestly have no idea how this Internet thing works.

Norton does know, but she doesn't fit in the Times's culture. It is a clash of two ideologies, and when you rise through the ranks of one, many times, when you try to break into the other, you end up being disavowed by both.

Once upon a time, this wouldn't force her dismissal. There would have been some sort of spin about how she was cultivating sources, and so, give it a rest because we know what we are doing, and you aren't a journalist.

We are living in different times, however. The Times has tried to bring in brash young blood, and it always backfires for one reason or another.

Because it doesn't have a pulse on what is happening around it or why.

Watching the Patriarchal Meltdown: Patrick Brown, Michael Haneke show the shift in a changing world away from the Patriarchal.

The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.

To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.

So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.

The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."

#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.

A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.

Or, more accurately, an Infinite.

The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).

The One becomes a target to evaluate.

It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.


Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.

But once the One wins, game over.

In television.

Reality is very different.

#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.

Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.

When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.

But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.

The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.

That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.

He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.

Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.

The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.

Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.

This is an epic temper tantrum.

But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.

With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.

What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.

His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.

The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.

And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.

Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.

Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.

They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.

Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.

Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?

When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.

This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.

It can turn you into a villain.

And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.

And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.

Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.

Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.

No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.

A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.

What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.

The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.

But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?

If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.

It is now a shift in perspective.

Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".

This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.

Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.

That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.

But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.

No, no, she threw herself at me!


Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.

When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.

And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.

Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.

And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.

And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.

How bad is Torstar doing?

In one of those shooting the hippo moments, they are talking about job cuts and shooing away those interns. The timing is very interesting, when their leader is making rounds demanding the federal government give them some money. Is it a coordinated optics campaign? I do believe they are in trouble, but their proposed solution makes much of this hard to believe on the face of it.

Their forays into the digital have been bad. They do not know how to do journalism, but they do know how to present narratives with super evil bad guys they taunt on a daily basis.

I remember interviewing one of the managing editors for an article for Presstime about the debut of a new rival, the National Post. He said that the Star had seen other papers come and go, and they'd see the Post come and go, too. (He later denied he said that to my editors, and I had the taped interview that confirmed that he did. He promised my editors to apologize to me, but that never happened and he is no longer alive to make good on it).

Is the Toronto Star going to disappear before the Post? Neither is in a good position, and while the National Post never did get the traction they needed to be entrenched to an audience, the Star did have it many years ago, and then got cocky and squandered much of that goodwill. When the city you cover is a mosaic, and your structure stubbornly stays patriarchal, you are playing a game that you will lose.

But if its fortunes are as bad as they say they are, the city, province, and nation should not bail them out. Not one. The rot is too far into the core of the profession, and what this country needs is a replacement for journalism that starts fresh from scratch.

Not this mess.


Is it demeaning for female broadcasters to be sleeveless?

Kim Campbell was a non-elected Prime Minister, and to date, the only woman in this country has had for the position. She has said something that has the typical knee-jerk reaction: that it is demeaning for female broadcasters to wear sleeveless shirts when on air.

It depends, and she is not entirely wrong.

If women are cajoled into wearing them on air by their superiors, then yes, it is very demeaning, as men on air wear long sleeves and do not dress to vogue to increase viewership (men on prime time programming, are often topless and ripped).

If it is the female anchor or reporter's decision to wear a professional outfit without sleeves, it is a different matter.

As Canada is not the UK, where there is always Debrett's to give sensible advice, we sort of wing it here, anyway.

But Campbell does have a point that goes beyond television news: women on magazine covers in general do have to be more naked than the men.


Notice all of the men are wearing pants, but the one who has the bigger cumulative box office draw on that cover -- Julia Roberts (who outdoes Clooney by hundreds of millions of dollars) -- doesn't.

Campbell's observation isn't reactionary. When you see a consistent pattern that women cannot get publicity unless she is in some state of undress, that points to inequality.

Even men who are considered sex symbols get to be dignified about it:


And some women do have to fight tooth and nail for that equality, and win:


It is an issue that women have to take into consideration.


Versus Bono, who isn't just staring vapidly at the camera, he is making real change!


So for those who are offended by Campbell's remarks, they ought to think about more than throwing their noses in the air, thinking women have made progress.

Because that Beyonce cover is from 2014.

The Candice Bergen cover is from 1992.

Should women wear sleeveless shirts when they deliver the news?

If they want to wear them, yes, of course. They are women, after all, and they are adults.

But they should also think why they are really wearing it, as well. Is it just because, or is it, deep down, you are worried the interns swarming around the newsroom will replace you and you have to keep up with your looks and your body?

And not the body of work you have done.

Cheap media stunts that backfire: We can draw attention to pay disparity, and hope no one notices it goes on in journalism.

Maclean's tried a cheap stunt with their covers: MAC02_EDIT_POST

The nerdy National Post, as usual, didn't actually get it. They tried, bless their heads, to compare people not buying the more expensive edition with getting paid to say there wan't pay disparity because people don't pay for more expensive things.

Yes, they do. They overpaid for their bread because there was price fixing. They overpaid for houses in Ontario. They overpaid for CEOs from Sears and Target who didn't manage to bring profits over here. They overpaid for lots of things, sometimes because they have no choice, and sometimes to gloat, and sometimes because there that whole thing about a fool and money.

(Oh, and obviously the author if the piece never heard of variant cover comic book covers where people paid a lot more just because the cover was different or rarer, even though the contents were the same.)

Women are underpaid, and paid less than men.

Especially in journalism (something I discuss in my upcoming book with one glaring example).

So much so that Vice Media finds itself staring at the business end of a lawsuit for its actions.

Journalism ought to know how badly it treats its female employees.

And the Maclean's covers are an appropriate symbol of a profession that always saw women as lesser than men.

Journalism is an industry without an identity.

CNN cannot get its act together. It's digital staff is losing jobs as well as their traditional ones (the face-saving excuse that they did too much too fast does not quite fly). North American journalists think they are seen as being avatars for progressiveness and inclusivity, but just reading this review of move The Post on Al Jazeera Media shows how insular Western journalism has become.

We can debate the merits of different media, for instance, and that's the entire problem.

Journalism doesn't have an identity. It tries to use a narrative that it is flawless, all-encompassing, compassionate, sensitive, and yet it is none of those things.

It is an industry that is lost and is trying to fake what it is expected of it.

That's a red flag that it has no idea what it is supposed to be, how to be it, and why.

Journalists think that slagging someone incessantly is the same as hard-hitting investigation. They believe fawning over celebrities makes it relatable and likeable.

That's not what they are supposed to do. It is not about saying of benevolent a celebrity is.

It is not supposed to give uncritical coverage to local child actors. They aren't supposed to grandma and grandpa their coverage.

They are supposed to tell people what isn't working, and why.

Where are the hidden dangers? What is changing or happening?

Journalists try to pretend to be sophisticated, but it is the primal instincts that are supposed to drive them.

Not boorish instincts, but the ones that spot trouble.


That's what I have been doing for journalism for a very long time. I am a one-woman news outlet with three specific mandates: (a) to show where journalism collapsed, (2) to show where publishing and storytelling failed, and (c) to look at how women are failing and succeeding in getting traction in their lives.

I know what my mandate is. It's clear and defined. There may be overlap, but my identity has precise and concise. There is no fuzzy lines for me.

It's why I can see things from a distance, and know what it is that I see. There are no sophistry-based arguments to indulge in. It's simple.

But journalism has forgotten what that means; and so, they continue to dither right into darkness with no idea where they are going or why.

Dear John Honderich: News producers squandered their power. The taxpayers owe you nothing. Stop the fear and pity tour and start looking how your profession destroyed itself.

It is very telling that Chair of Torstar John Honderich is having to recycle a column he wrote in the Toronto Star on January 26, 2018 where he throws a temper tantrum because the federal government wasn't funding the dysfunctional Canadian newspaper industry. So Torstar recycled that same flawed column on today, and then go on Newstalk 1010's Jerry Agar's radio program.

Once upon a time, Honderich's decrees would have been considered important.

They aren't, of course. This is a Fear and Pity Tour.

He doesn't get it, and if the Chair of a newspaper company doesn't get it, neither do any of his underlings.

And it explains a lot about why Canadian journalism dropped dead.

On the program, he blames Facebook and Google for taking the bulk of classified ads and not putting that money back in journalism.

Sorry, they won the spoils of that gladiatorial battle, and they can do with that booty whatever they want. Advertisers went to Facebook and Google because they reach a broader audience who were more receptive than they were over at newspapers. Classified ads and their ilk were never naturally decreed to be used for funding journalism; journalism lost those valuable dollars for a reason.

So Google and Facebook owe the newspaper industry nothing.

But then he goes off on the federal government as if the government owes the newspaper industry a dime.

Honderich thinks the partisan non-profit model of some American media outfits is a good thing. Its not: it's propaganda used to support political ideology because that is going to be the only way you are going to shake down people for pity cash. They are not journalism. They are a modern version of the Partisan Press that had to change its ways because that model doesn't actually work.

He then talks about getting funding through copyright protection, meaning information becomes less accessible. You are giving facts, and it is bad enough newspapers such as the Star scrape ideas from other outlets and people (and yet he has the nerve to complain that radio shows "rip and read" from newspapers on the program) -- and now you want copyright protection for it when journalists are notoriously sloppy when it comes to giving proper credit and attribution of where they got their ideas? The legal fallout would be disastrous.

He wants some of the money the CBC gets, not realizing CBC is a crown corporation, and it is wiser and more strategic for a government to have one broadcaster they can babysit, than spread their cash to more outlets.

Honderich then muses that since Canadian magazine and book publishers get government money, so should journalism outlets, never questioning just how bad is Canadian publishing if it needs government funding for its survival. If you cannot make it a go without constant government funding, your industry does not actually exist. It is fake.

The fact that now not even newspapers can survive without taxpayer money shows you a problem that exploded out of control because we never bothered to find the way to make it pay all on its own.

In other words, if Canada cannot produce quality journalism without a government welfare check, then you do not have journalism, let alone quality journalism. Period.

But the biggest knee-slapper is his suggestion that the government pay for news outlets' lawyers. There are poor people being harmed as we speak and are in desperate need of good legal council -- so you just want to snatch funds away from them? Really? Then you are as tyrannical as the boors you imply you are keeping accountable.

There are more pressing groups, such as First Nations people, who have been waiting far longer than newspapers. Get a number and go to the back of the line, like everyone else.

Yet both his advertising campaign/newspaper column, Honderich makes not a single mention of how those in the Canadian media landscape were at fault in any way, or need to make a single modification to their behaviour. He paints his ilk as noble, faultless, and blameless.

No, Mr. Honderich, that is not true. That is not accurate.

That is not realistic.

You are the Chair of Torstar. The buck stops with you.

It is you who has to make the internal changes to take on the external ones.

If your plan is to keep throwing fits and begging the government for money as you keep on the status quo, you do not understand what being a Chair means.

That is not a plan. Why should the government fund newspapers when your audiences keep falling? Why would they sink taxpayer money into a black hole? What's in it for them?

Newspapers have bred arrogance within their own rosters. You sniffed haughtily at citizen journalism on the program. Yes, the little people are not as well-trained as your journalists who have no clue how to connect with those people who would rather do it themselves than trust the press.

That distrust did not come from nowhere. It came because journalists perpetually ignored all the signs around them, and then people walked away.

The people do not want newspapers. The government doesn't need you.

Do you understand you have become beneath both?

Buried. Six feet under.

Journalism is dead. Don't ask the taxpayers to fund the corpse. They'd rather invest it in the living, not the dead.


It is 2018; so why does North America continue to ignore female media critics?


It was about 2007 when I was interviewed for a magazine profile, and the editor of the magazine had been surprised at my credentials back then and wondered why I wasn't promoted more by other outlets and institutions. I did receive an award from my alma mater McMaster University for my career achievements, but he noted it should have been much more than that, and he was right.

I would have if I was Alexander Kitty.

Fast forward to 2018, and I can tell you that the situation is no better for women.

How so?

What has been on everyone's mind since the 2016 US election?

Fake news.

You would think my 2005 book would suddenly be in demand, all things considered.

Not a chance.

I may be blunt, eccentric, and suffer no fools, but my work is sound and solid. I do my research, and I am thorough.

So why hasn't Don't Believe It! been at least mentioned by writers and journalists discussing fake news?

Because I am Writing While Female.

The book has been mentioned in other textbooks and academic papers. If you want to understand the history of fake news, that book will tell you everything you need to know.

The misogyny in the North American press is beyond control, despite #MeToo.

However, not every place is as disgracefully silent as North America.

This is an academic paper from the University of Łodź in Poland that is a discussion of fake news from 2018:

The creation of fake news is nothing new. Alexandra Kitty in her book Don’t Believe It! How Lies Become News (2005) discusses many such cases.

Why is there no mention in North America? Either it is ignorance...or sexism. There is no third option.

Even before then, in 2005, the Irish Times had this passage in an article of book recommendations from various individuals, and this is one:

Don't Believe It - How Lies Become News (Disinformation Co, £9.99) by Alexandra Kitty should be compulsory for anyone in the media business.

Yes, it should have been because that was the reason I wrote it: so that journalists and other news producers got a clue; so we wouldn't have fake news being indistinguishable from real news.

But as the book came from a woman, those in the business just ignored it because they are convinced they know everything, and any criticism -- real or perceived -- levelled at them requires stewing or a temper tantrum...and the requisite demonizing and blaming of the person who is telling them the reality and truth of a situation.

In 2005, I had two media books come out within exactly one month of each other (Don't Believe It! and OutFoxed). That is not a common feat, and these books, when they were reviewed or noticed, were well received; so I wasn't churning out dreck. Only one academic paper actually bothered to notice this accomplishment in their footnote:

The publication date for Alexandra Kitty’s Outfoxed was April 15, 2005, nine months after the documentary. One month earlier (March 15, 2005), she had published a book on the broader topic of news and its manipulation.

This is sexism at its absolute worst. Men can be stoned out of their heads, rude, boorish, weird, uninformed, arrogant, and clueless...but they will be seen as visionaries who can see into the future.

Women, on the other hand, are ghettoized. We may get a patronizing pat on the head every once in a while that is supposed to make us girls feel validated enough to just run along all happy and out of the way of the men, but we have to waste precious focus and resources on willfully distracting battles that men do not.

Even now, this article is about how the New York Times' CEO says print will be dead in ten years...while I say the entire industry of journalism is already dead and buried.

I outline it all in When Journalism was a Thing.


As well as on the site.

I am not the only woman to be ignored this way. It's not just an Alexandra Kitty Problem. It's a Woman Problem.

We don't allow for women to be taken as seriously as men.

And it is time that rancid cowardice is confronted once and for all.

The Cavemen of the Internet.

For a vast wilderness, social media proved to be the opposite: you have tunnels and caves, and the outcome is different than the whole expand-your-world idealism it once promised. Nor do we see people becoming less judgemental, or more likely to modify or adjust their world theories.


In my career, I have done several things, but three that stand out: (1) I have (a) written about the veracity problem in journalism that, (b) lead to its collapse; (2) I had founded and ran a feminist-based hard news website called Chaser News, and (3) I created and continue to run A Dangerous Woman Story Studio that has a Matriarchal Structure of interconnected stories where the meaning and spoilers change depending on the stories you read and in what order you read them.

These are public works. My books have been reviewed and used in academic journals and books, and are sitting on libraries and university shelves around the world, and I gave numerous interviews about them, and I still talk about journalism here. Chaser News got press on television and in print. A Dangerous Woman works have also gotten mentions and are still active on Kindle and Kobo.

So, if anyone were to research online, they would come across all of these facts.

Except they don't bother. If it pops into their heads, they think they called it, history be damned.

I have heard of people saying there really ought to be a book on how to spot real news from fake news.

There is and it was published in 2005. I am the author of it.

I have heard people acting as if they discovered that journalism is dead.

That's what this site is here for and the book I wrote last year is coming in a few months time. You can get a preview of it on Amazon.

I have read articles how there is no feminist version of the Intercept -- I toiled with one before there was an Intercept way back in 2007.

I have also heard there aren't any fiction presses that are specifically created to be general audience, but also woman-centric.

I have been toiling at that since 2013.


I am not looking for applause, but I am not sitting around to be ignored, either.

Social media has become a cave, and there is an annoying tendency on the part of Millennials that they assume the world began with their arrival, and anything that happened before them doesn't count.

Oh, yes it does.

You did not invent civil rights or activism. You didn't invent feminism. Just because none of your friends know something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

Being historically illiterate makes you ignorant in other ways as well.

Before you go off on a rant, find out first whether you actually have a case to rant about.

That bad habit expanded to include older people who are also behaving like Neanderthals, but it goes much deeper than ignoring the past works of people not on your Twitter or Facebook feeds.

Snapchat is social media that has a short-term memory -- and then pretends to disappear, and people's memories are mimicking that self-centred dysfunction.

Unless it pops up right in front of someone's smartphone, it does not exist. It is all reaction, and no reflection.

It gets worse in other respects: people have become tribal and highly intolerant of ideas and opinions that do not align with their own. Drop contacts from your social media feed because they are not applauding your gods, and point out their weaknesses.

Worlds do not expand, but restrict.

Then there is the obsession with selfies: when the Kardashians got media attention for staring vapidly in their smart phones and snapping nudies of themselves, all the other vapid followers did the same, thinking they'd get free publicity with it, too.

The idea of a social network became an oxymoron: people forgot about social, and they cut off the networks, turning their online environments into caves where they never looked beyond the writing on their own cave walls for validation.

Most university students know about "Plato's Cave" where the people shackled inside do not believe the one who went outside and saw a bigger world out there:


That's my notes from my own Sociology of Knowledge and Culture class I took as an undergrad. Most people fancy themselves as the liberated one, not the one staring at the cave wall.

The social media feed.

They think the whole world is on their godphone. It is not.

It is the real you need more than one source to get your information.

It can seem as if you are -- but it is an illusion. If all your contacts share the same beliefs, and you keep shutting down and dismissing people who do not fit into your narrative, you have a serious problem.

You are not one to venture outside your cave. You are amused by the flickering lights of the fire and the shadows on the wall. Journalists may whine about the declines in readers, but they took easy shortcuts called Kardashians and Trump, and never expanded people's ideas or understanding. Social media took care of the rest.

We are in an age where people do not see outside their own selfies. They do not respect the notion that they do not know everything, and are not gods, let alone kings and queens.

They ignore the works of those who struggled to pave the path before them, and then rant and rave at those who dare venture to wide open spaces to see what more there is to life than staring at a wall.

We have returned to an emotionally and intellectually primitive era. We may know to use more sophisticated words, but the base of our knowledge, intellect, and empathy have regressed. That collective immaturity cost journalism its credibility and relevance to the world. There are ways to combat it, but it takes more than just academic rigours.

It takes an understanding that a cave can as easily be a smartphone -- or ivory tower. So long as we stick to our caves and ideological tribes, we will keep regressing as we know and understand less than we ever have before.

Despite its little trick, CNN prepares for more job losses.

CNN is a network with no news, and it is going to be shedding even more jobs. 1200px-CNN.svg-2

Railing against Donald Trump isn't news, or news that grows an audience.

The problem with CNN is that it has a single trick and relies on bashing a single person.

What you end up with is people who just tune in to have their vitriol validated, and they do not care if there are facts; they just want blood.

You could tell them Trump is Cthulhu, and that's fine, good enough.

They are not audiences who cares about news other than targeting a single person or collective. When that's over, they leave. They have no interest or loyalty.

They are the absolute worst audience to court.

The fly by nighters are fickle, and if some other site out rants CNN, that's where the flock will go. You cannot make a news outlet on rage alone; sooner or later, it all comes crashing down.

CNN is learning this the hard way, and once a structure is eroded, good luck with improving it from there.

But outlets like CNN suffer from a bad case of hubris, and they can't see it.